DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. In addition, acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/884,131, filed on September 13, 2024.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as filed on September 13, 2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 capitalizes first letter of first word recited in each of third line and fifth line of the claim. Thus, the Examiner suggests making the first letter of each first word in the third and fifth lines of the claim lowercase. In addition, any claim(s) dependent on claim 1 is objected to based on same above reasoning.
The claim recites limitations “shaded area” and “image of the actual objects” in seventh line of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitations are referring to a same “shaded area” and “image ” recited in fifth line and third line respectively of the claim, or to a different shaded area or different image. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issue. In addition, any claim(s) dependent on claim 1 is objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claims 3-10, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In particular, claim recites limitation “the virtual object visibility wearable display device” in first line of the claims, but the limitation is unclear at least because the claims use term “the virtual object visibility wearable display device” for a first time without previously reciting the term in the claim, or in a claim from which they depend. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations “the virtual object visibility wearable display device” should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue. Accordingly, any claim(s) dependent on claims 2, or 5-6 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may
be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover
the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in
support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,
material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a length adjusting unit configured to” recited in fifth line of claim 12 is considered to read on length adjusting unit 130 (pg. 23, Lines 5-9).
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites limitation “the same glass bland” in third line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim given that the claim uses term “the same glass band” for a first time without previously reciting the term in the claim, or in a claim from which the claim 2 depends which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the same glass band is actually referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue. Accordingly, any claim(s) dependent on claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based at least on same above reasoning.
Claim 4 recites limitation “the glass bland” in third line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim given that the claim uses term “the glass band” for a first time without previously reciting the term in the claim, or in a claim from which the claim 3 depends which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the glass band is actually referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 5 recites limitation “the shadow area” in second line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim given that the claim uses term “the shadow area” for a first time without previously reciting the term in the claim, or in a claim from which the claim 5 depends which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the shadow area is actually referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue. Accordingly, any claim(s) dependent on claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based at least on same above reasoning.
Claim 8 recites limitation “the shadow area” in fifth line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim given that the claim uses term “the shadow area” for a first time without previously reciting the term in the claim, or in a claim from which the claim 8 depends which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the shadow area is actually referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9 recites limitation “the shadow area” in third line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim given that the claim uses term “the shadow area” for a first time without previously reciting the term in the claim, or in a claim from which the claim 9 depends which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the shadow area is actually referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 12 recites limitations “the rotating frame”, “the image output unit”, and “the seating frame” in first thru third line, third thru fourth line and sixth line, and fifth line and sixth line of the claim, but the limitations are unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitations in the claim given that the claim uses terms “the rotating frame”, “the image output unit”, and “the seating frame” for a first time without previously reciting the terms in the claim, or in a claim from which the claim 12 depends which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the rotating frame, the image output unit, and the seating frame are actually referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issues.
Claim 13 recites limitations “the rotating frame” and “the image output unit” in first thru second line and second thru third line respectively of the claim, but the limitations are unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitations in the claim given that the claim uses terms “the rotating frame” and “the image output unit” for a first time without previously reciting the terms in the claim, or in a claim from which the claim 13 depends which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what the rotating frame and the image output unit are actually referring to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleck et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0208014 A1 (hereinafter Fleck).
Regarding claim 1, Fleck teaches a wearable display device for virtual object visibility, the wearable display device comprising: A transparent display unit that displays virtual objects on image of actual objects in a real space; and An auxiliary transparent display unit that generates a shaded area corresponding to the virtual objects behind the virtual objects (200, 54, 300 and 320, 60, 422 FIGS. 1-4, paragraphs[0024]-[0026] of Fleck teaches FIG. 2 shows an example of an HMD device 200 in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that include a transparent display 54 and a visor 60; as discussed in more detail below, the visor 60 includes one or more opacity layers in which blocking images may be generated; in one example, the visor 60 may be integrally formed with the transparent display 54 in the form of, for example, one or more additional layers; in other examples, the visor 60 may separately mounted or attached adjacent to the transparent display 54; it will be appreciated that the HMD device 200 may take other suitable forms in which a transparent or semi-transparent display is supported in front of a viewer's eye or eyes; it will also be appreciated that the HMD device 50 illustrated in FIG. 1 may take the form of the HMD device 200, as described in more detail below, or any other suitable HMD device; with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, in one example the transparent display 54 includes display optics 56 that enable virtual images to be presented to the eyes of a user; the transparent display 54 and associated display optics 56 may be configured to visually augment an appearance of a physical environment to a user viewing the physical environment through the transparent display; and for example, the appearance of a physical environment may be augmented by graphical content (e.g., one or more pixels each having a respective color and brightness) that is presented via the display optics 56 of the transparent display 54, and See also at least paragraphs[0027]-[0066] of Fleck (i.e., Fleck teaches an HMD in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that includes a distinctly stacked transparent display and a visor that extend in a thickness direction toward a user’s left and right eyes, wherein the transparent display enables virtual images such as a globe to be presented to the eyes of a user that floats in a physical environment that includes physical objects (e.g., a wall, a whiteboard, and a window), and wherein the visor is disposed adjacent to the transparent display and generates a blocking image that selectively blocks real world light, which impinges on the blocking image, in a manner that enhances the visual non-overlapping contrast between a virtual image that is being displayed and the physical environment within which the virtual image is perceived by the user)); and wherein shaded area prevents an image of the actual objects from passing through the virtual objects, so that the virtual objects do not appear superimposed on the actual objects in the real space (308, 312, 314 FIGS. 1-4, paragraph[0046] of Fleck teaches with reference now to FIGS. 3 and 4, a description of a user 304 wearing the HMD device 200 and viewing a physical environment 300 using one example of the blocking image generating system 10 will now be provided; FIG. 3 is a schematic illustration of the user 304 seated in the physical environment 300, which in this example is a room that includes a wall 308, a whiteboard 312 mounted on the wall, and a window 316; the display optics 56 of the HMD device 200 are presenting a virtual image to the eyes of the user 304 in the form of a virtual globe 320 in a first user-perceived location; and as discussed in more detail below, the virtual image may be presented to the user 304 in other user-perceived locations, such as virtual globe 320' that represents a second user-perceived position of the globe, and See also at least paragraphs[0024]-[0045], and [0047]-[0066] of Fleck (i.e., Fleck teaches an HMD in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that includes a transparent display and a visor that extend in a thickness direction toward a user’s left and right eyes, wherein the transparent display enables virtual images such as a globe to be presented to the eyes of a user that floats in a physical environment that includes physical objects (e.g., a wall, a whiteboard, and a window), and wherein the visor is disposed adjacent to the transparent display and generates a blocking image that selectively blocks real world light, which impinges on the blocking image, in a manner that enhances the visual non-overlapping contrast between a virtual image that is being displayed and the physical environment within which the virtual image is perceived by the user)).
Regarding claim 3, Fleck teaches the virtual object visibility wearable display device of The virtual object visibility wearable display device of wherein the transparent display unit and the auxiliary transparent display unit are separately formed to distinguish between left and right eyes (FIGS. 1-4, paragraphs[0024]-[0026] of Fleck teaches FIG. 2 shows an example of an HMD device 200 in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that include a transparent display 54 and a visor 60; as discussed in more detail below, the visor 60 includes one or more opacity layers in which blocking images may be generated; in one example, the visor 60 may be integrally formed with the transparent display 54 in the form of, for example, one or more additional layers; in other examples, the visor 60 may separately mounted or attached adjacent to the transparent display 54; it will be appreciated that the HMD device 200 may take other suitable forms in which a transparent or semi-transparent display is supported in front of a viewer's eye or eyes; it will also be appreciated that the HMD device 50 illustrated in FIG. 1 may take the form of the HMD device 200, as described in more detail below, or any other suitable HMD device; with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, in one example the transparent display 54 includes display optics 56 that enable virtual images to be presented to the eyes of a user; the transparent display 54 and associated display optics 56 may be configured to visually augment an appearance of a physical environment to a user viewing the physical environment through the transparent display; and for example, the appearance of a physical environment may be augmented by graphical content (e.g., one or more pixels each having a respective color and brightness) that is presented via the display optics 56 of the transparent display 54, and See also at least paragraphs[0027]-[0066] of Fleck (i.e., Fleck teaches an HMD in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that includes a distinctly stacked transparent display and a visor that extend in a thickness direction toward a user’s left and right eyes, wherein the transparent display enables virtual images such as a globe to be presented to the eyes of a user that floats in a physical environment that includes physical objects (e.g., a wall, a whiteboard, and a window), and wherein the visor is disposed adjacent to the transparent display and generates a blocking image that selectively blocks real world light, which impinges on the blocking image, in a manner that enhances the visual non-overlapping contrast between a virtual image that is being displayed and the physical environment within which the virtual image is perceived by the user)).
Regarding claim 5, Fleck teaches the virtual object visibility wearable display device of the virtual object visibility wearable display device of further comprising a control unit that controls the shadow area to be output to the auxiliary transparent display unit when the virtual object is displayed on the transparent display unit (30 FIGS. 1-4, paragraphs[0020] of Fleck teaches FIG. 1 shows a schematic view of one embodiment of a blocking image generating system 10 for blocking a portion of real-world light from reaching eyes of a user wearing a head-mounted display (HMD) device 50; the blocking image generating system 10 includes a blocking image generating program 14 that may be stored in mass storage 18 of a computing device 22; the blocking image generating program 14 may be loaded into memory 26 and executed by a processor 30 of the computing device 22 to perform one or more of the methods and processes described in more detail below; and as described in more detail below, the blocking image generating program 14 may generate one or more blocking images 16, and See also at least paragraphs[0024]-[0066] of Fleck (i.e., Fleck teaches an HMD in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that includes a distinctly stacked transparent display and a visor that extend in a thickness direction toward a user’s left and right eyes, wherein the transparent display enables virtual images such as a globe to be presented to the eyes of a user that floats in a physical environment that includes physical objects (e.g., a wall, a whiteboard, and a window), and wherein the visor is disposed adjacent to the transparent display and with a processor generates a blocking image that selectively blocks real world light, which impinges on the blocking image, in a manner that enhances the visual non-overlapping contrast between a virtual image that is being displayed and the physical environment within which the virtual image is perceived by the user)).
Regarding claim 9, Fleck teaches the virtual object visibility wearable display device of claim 5, wherein the control unit synchronizes and simultaneously outputs a display of the virtual object on the transparent display unit and a display of the shadow area on the auxiliary transparent display unit (30 FIGS. 1-4, paragraphs[0029] of Fleck teaches as discussed in more detail below, the one or more opacity layers in the visor 60 may selectively block real-world light received from the physical environment before the light reaches an eye of a user wearing the HMD device 200; advantageously, by selectively blocking real-world light, the one or more opacity layers may enhance the visual contrast between a virtual image and the physical environment within which the virtual image is perceived by the user; in one example and with reference again to FIG. 1, such blocking may be performed by a first opacity layer 58 located within the visor 60; in another example, the first opacity layer 58 and a second opacity layer 62 may cooperate to selectively block real-world light; and a more detailed description of methods for selectively blocking real-world light is provided below, and See also at least paragraphs[0020], [0024]-[0028], and [0030]-[0066] of Fleck (i.e., Fleck teaches an HMD in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that includes a distinctly stacked transparent display and a visor that extend in a thickness direction toward a user’s left and right eyes, wherein the transparent display enables virtual images such as a globe to be presented to the eyes of a user that floats in a physical environment that includes physical objects (e.g., a wall, a whiteboard, and a window), and wherein the visor is disposed adjacent to the transparent display and with a processor generates a blocking image that selectively blocks real world light, which impinges on the blocking image, in a manner that concurrently enhances the visual non-overlapping contrast between a virtual image that is being displayed and the physical environment within which the virtual image is perceived by the user)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleck, in view of Moore et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0093415 A1 (hereinafter Moore).
Regarding claim 2, Fleck teaches the wearable display device for virtual object visibility according to the wearable display device for virtual object visibility according to claim 1, wherein the transparent display unit and the auxiliary transparent display unit form a structure that protrudes toward user on the same glass (200, 54, 300 and 320, 60, 422 FIGS. 1-4, paragraphs[0024]-[0026] of Fleck teaches FIG. 2 shows an example of an HMD device 200 in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that include a transparent display 54 and a visor 60; as discussed in more detail below, the visor 60 includes one or more opacity layers in which blocking images may be generated; in one example, the visor 60 may be integrally formed with the transparent display 54 in the form of, for example, one or more additional layers; in other examples, the visor 60 may separately mounted or attached adjacent to the transparent display 54; it will be appreciated that the HMD device 200 may take other suitable forms in which a transparent or semi-transparent display is supported in front of a viewer's eye or eyes; it will also be appreciated that the HMD device 50 illustrated in FIG. 1 may take the form of the HMD device 200, as described in more detail below, or any other suitable HMD device; with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, in one example the transparent display 54 includes display optics 56 that enable virtual images to be presented to the eyes of a user; the transparent display 54 and associated display optics 56 may be configured to visually augment an appearance of a physical environment to a user viewing the physical environment through the transparent display; and for example, the appearance of a physical environment may be augmented by graphical content (e.g., one or more pixels each having a respective color and brightness) that is presented via the display optics 56 of the transparent display 54, and See also at least paragraphs[0027]-[0066] of Fleck (i.e., Fleck teaches an HMD in the form of a pair of wearable glasses, have a frame, that includes a transparent display and a visor that extend in a thickness direction toward the user, wherein the transparent display enables virtual images such as a globe to be presented to the eyes of a user that floats in a physical environment that includes physical objects (e.g., a wall, a whiteboard, and a window), and wherein the visor is disposed adjacent to the transparent display and generates a blocking image that selectively blocks real world light, which impinges on the blocking image, in a manner that enhances the visual non-overlapping contrast between a virtual image that is being displayed and the physical environment within which the virtual image is perceived by the user)); but does not expressly teach band.
However, Moore teaches band (518 FIG. 5, paragraph[0205] of Moore teaches FIG. 5 is a schematic representation of visualization device 213 for use in an MR system, such as MR system 212 of FIG. 2, according to an example of this disclosure. As shown in the example of FIG. 5, visualization device 213 can include a variety of electronic components found in a computing system, including one or more processor(s) 514 (e.g., microprocessors or other types of processing units) and memory 516 that may be mounted on or within a frame 518. Furthermore, in the example of FIG. 5, visualization device 213 may include a transparent screen 520 that is positioned at eye level when visualization device 213 is worn by a user. In some examples, screen 520 can include one or more liquid crystal displays (LCDs) or other types of display screens on which images are perceptible to a surgeon who is wearing or otherwise using visualization device 213 via screen 520. Other display examples include organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays. In some examples, visualization device 213 can operate to project 3D images onto the user's retinas using techniques known in the art (i.e., Moore teaches a visualization device having a frame that wraps wound the head of a user)).
Furthermore, Fleck and Moore are considered to be analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to a display device, and involve the same problem of forming the display device in a manner that can be suitably worn by a user. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Fleck based on Moore so as to have a band. One reason for the modification as taught by Moore is to have a suitable visualization device that provides education about an orthopedic surgical procedure using mixed reality, and allows multiple users with a visualization device to view same information from different points of view (paragraphs[0004], and [0180]-[0181] of Moore). The same motivation and rationale to combine for claim 2 mentioned above, in light of corresponding statement of grounds of rejection, applies to each dependent claim mentioned in the corresponding statement of grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 4, Fleck teaches the virtual object visibility wearable display device of claim 1, wherein the transparent display unit and the auxiliary transparent display unit form a stacked structure on the glass (FIGS. 1-4, paragraphs[0024]-[0026] of Fleck teaches FIG. 2 shows an example of an HMD device 200 in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that include a transparent display 54 and a visor 60; as discussed in more detail below, the visor 60 includes one or more opacity layers in which blocking images may be generated; in one example, the visor 60 may be integrally formed with the transparent display 54 in the form of, for example, one or more additional layers; in other examples, the visor 60 may separately mounted or attached adjacent to the transparent display 54; it will be appreciated that the HMD device 200 may take other suitable forms in which a transparent or semi-transparent display is supported in front of a viewer's eye or eyes; it will also be appreciated that the HMD device 50 illustrated in FIG. 1 may take the form of the HMD device 200, as described in more detail below, or any other suitable HMD device; with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, in one example the transparent display 54 includes display optics 56 that enable virtual images to be presented to the eyes of a user; the transparent display 54 and associated display optics 56 may be configured to visually augment an appearance of a physical environment to a user viewing the physical environment through the transparent display; and for example, the appearance of a physical environment may be augmented by graphical content (e.g., one or more pixels each having a respective color and brightness) that is presented via the display optics 56 of the transparent display 54, and See also at least paragraphs[0027]-[0066] of Fleck (i.e., Fleck teaches an HMD in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that includes a distinctly stacked transparent display and a visor that extend in a thickness direction toward a user’s left and right eyes, wherein the transparent display enables virtual images such as a globe to be presented to the eyes of a user that floats in a physical environment that includes physical objects (e.g., a wall, a whiteboard, and a window), and wherein the visor is disposed adjacent to the transparent display and generates a blocking image that selectively blocks real world light, which impinges on the blocking image, in a manner that enhances the visual non-overlapping contrast between a virtual image that is being displayed and the physical environment within which the virtual image is perceived by the user)); but does not expressly teach band.
However, Moore teaches band (518 FIG. 5, paragraph[0205] of Moore teaches FIG. 5 is a schematic representation of visualization device 213 for use in an MR system, such as MR system 212 of FIG. 2, according to an example of this disclosure. As shown in the example of FIG. 5, visualization device 213 can include a variety of electronic components found in a computing system, including one or more processor(s) 514 (e.g., microprocessors or other types of processing units) and memory 516 that may be mounted on or within a frame 518. Furthermore, in the example of FIG. 5, visualization device 213 may include a transparent screen 520 that is positioned at eye level when visualization device 213 is worn by a user. In some examples, screen 520 can include one or more liquid crystal displays (LCDs) or other types of display screens on which images are perceptible to a surgeon who is wearing or otherwise using visualization device 213 via screen 520. Other display examples include organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays. In some examples, visualization device 213 can operate to project 3D images onto the user's retinas using techniques known in the art (i.e., Moore teaches a visualization device having a frame that wraps wound the head of a user)).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleck, in view of Tomine et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0113867 A1 (hereinafter Tomine).
Regarding claim 11, Fleck teaches a wearable display device worn on a user's head and providing augmented reality, the wearable display device comprising: (200 FIGS. 1-4, paragraphs[0024]-[0026] of Fleck teaches FIG. 2 shows an example of an HMD device 200 in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that include a transparent display 54 and a visor 60; as discussed in more detail below, the visor 60 includes one or more opacity layers in which blocking images may be generated; in one example, the visor 60 may be integrally formed with the transparent display 54 in the form of, for example, one or more additional layers; in other examples, the visor 60 may separately mounted or attached adjacent to the transparent display 54; it will be appreciated that the HMD device 200 may take other suitable forms in which a transparent or semi-transparent display is supported in front of a viewer's eye or eyes; it will also be appreciated that the HMD device 50 illustrated in FIG. 1 may take the form of the HMD device 200, as described in more detail below, or any other suitable HMD device; with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, in one example the transparent display 54 includes display optics 56 that enable virtual images to be presented to the eyes of a user; the transparent display 54 and associated display optics 56 may be configured to visually augment an appearance of a physical environment to a user viewing the physical environment through the transparent display; and for example, the appearance of a physical environment may be augmented by graphical content (e.g., one or more pixels each having a respective color and brightness) that is presented via the display optics 56 of the transparent display 54, and See also at least paragraphs[0027]-[0066] of Fleck (i.e., Fleck teaches an HMD in the form of a pair of wearable glasses that includes a distinctly stacked transparent display and a visor that extend in a thickness direction toward a user’s left and right eyes, wherein the transparent display enables virtual images such as a globe to be presented to the eyes of a user that floats in a physical environment that includes physical objects (e.g., a wall, a whiteboard, and a window), and wherein the visor is disposed adjacent to the transparent display and generates a blocking image that selectively blocks real world light, which impinges on the blocking image, in a manner that enhances the visual non-overlapping contrast between a virtual image that is being displayed and the physical environment within which the virtual image is perceived by the user)); but does not expressly teach a seating frame seated on the user's head; a rotating frame rotatably coupled to the seating frame; an image output unit fixed to the rotating frame and transmitting light of an external environment and outputting an image; and a sound output unit fixed to one end of the seating frame to cover the user's ears and outputting sound, wherein the image output unit is selectively disposed in front of the user's eyes as the image output unit is rotated together with the rotating frame.
However, Tomine teaches a seating frame seated on the user's head; a rotating frame rotatably coupled to the seating frame; an image output unit fixed to the rotating frame and transmitting light of an external environment and outputting an image; and a sound output unit fixed to one end of the seating frame to cover the user's ears and outputting sound, wherein the image output unit is selectively disposed in front of the user's eyes as the image output unit is rotated together with the rotating frame (2122, 2114A and 2114B, 2110, 2100 and 2110, 2116A and 2116B FIGS. 3, 10, and 21, paragraphs[0079]-[0081] of Tomine teaches FIG. 21 is a perspective view of a head-mountable display system 2100 having a curved clear lens element 2110; the display system 2100 can employ a holographic lens, a projection lens, standard optics, a free-shaped prism, a light pipe, a mirrored or half-mirrored lens, or any other suitable lens type, as determined by one skilled in the art; a bar 2112 can be opaque and hold the lens elements; the bar 2112 can have a cut-out area for nose clearance; the curved lens element 2110 can also have a pivot on both sides to allow adjustment of the optic axis with respect to the user's eye; the temple arms 2114a, 2114b can extend to adjust for different head sizes and can extend up when in a 90 degree up position (i.e., over the user's head); in addition, the temple arms 2114a, 2114b can pivot at speakers 2116a, 2116b to adjust a sight angle and allow unit to fold up 90 degrees (over user's head when not in use), or 180 degree for storage; a pivot 2118 not only rotates on the x-axis (horizontal), but also about the z-axis (vertical) so that the temple arms can pivot to accommodate various head sizes; alternatively, the temple arms can be flexible enough to flex and accommodate this movement; an additional pivot at the lens area (not shown) can be utilized to allow for the adjustment of the temple arms to further accommodate various head sizes; the temple arms 2114a, 2114b are shown with a push button 2120, which can adjust the arm length when depressed; and this adjustment can also be done without a release button, and See also at least paragraphs[0005], [0060]-[0066], [0081]-[0083], and [0118] of Tomine (i.e., Tomine teaches a head-mountable display system having a headband and temple arms that are connected in a manner that allows them to be selectively extended and pivoted at different angles in front of a user’s eyes, wherein the head-mounted display system includes a holographic lens, which is pivotally attached to the temple arms, or any other suitable lens type capable of transmitting and reconstructing an image, wherein speakers, which are capable of outputting sound, are connected to temple arms and headband in a manner capable of being hooked over the user’s ears)).
Furthermore, Fleck and Tomine are considered to be analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to a display device, and involve the same problem of forming the display device in a manner that can be suitably worn by a user. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Fleck based on Tomine so as to have a seating frame seated on the user's head; a rotating frame rotatably coupled to the seating frame; an image output unit fixed to the rotating frame and transmitting light of an external environment and outputting an image; and a sound output unit fixed to one end of the seating frame to cover the user's ears and outputting sound, wherein the image output unit is selectively disposed in front of the user's eyes as the image output unit is rotated together with the rotating frame. One reason for the modification as taught by Tomine is to have a head-mountable display system that can be adapted to allow users to see though or above or below a display assembly (ABSTRACT of Tomine). The same motivation and rationale to combine for claim 11 mentioned above, in light of corresponding statement of grounds of rejection, applies to each dependent claim mentioned in the corresponding statement of grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 12, Fleck teaches the virtual object visibility wearable display device of claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the rotating frame comprises: a rotating frame body forming a shape of the rotating frame and being fixed the image output unit; and a length adjusting unit configured to connect the rotating frame body and the seating frame and to adjust a distance between the image output unit and the user's eyes.
However, Tomine teaches wherein the rotating frame comprises: a rotating frame body forming a shape of the rotating frame and being fixed the image output unit; and a length adjusting unit configured to connect the rotating frame body and the seating frame and to adjust a distance between the image output unit and the user's eyes (2114 and 2114b FIGS. 3, 10, and 21, paragraphs[0079]-[0081] of Tomine teaches FIG. 21 is a perspective view of a head-mountable display system 2100 having a curved clear lens element 2110; the display system 2100 can employ a holographic lens, a projection lens, standard optics, a free-shaped prism, a light pipe, a mirrored or half-mirrored lens, or any other suitable lens type, as determined by one skilled in the art; a bar 2112 can be opaque and hold the lens elements; the bar 2112 can have a cut-out area for nose clearance; the curved lens element 2110 can also have a pivot on both sides to allow adjustment of the optic axis with respect to the user's eye; the temple arms 2114a, 2114b can extend to adjust for different head sizes and can extend up when in a 90 degree up position (i.e., over the user's head); in addition, the temple arms 2114a, 2114b can pivot at speakers 2116a, 2116b to adjust a sight angle and allow unit to fold up 90 degrees (over user's head when not in use), or 180 degree for storage; a pivot 2118 not only rotates on the x-axis (horizontal), but also about the z-axis (vertical) so that the temple arms can pivot to accommodate various head sizes; alternatively, the temple arms can be flexible enough to flex and accommodate this movement; an additional pivot at the lens area (not shown) can be utilized to allow for the adjustment of the temple arms to further accommodate various head sizes; the temple arms 2114a, 2114b are shown with a push button 2120, which can adjust the arm length when depressed; and this adjustment can also be done without a release button, and See also at least paragraphs[0005], [0060]-[0066], [0081]-[0083], and [0118] of Tomine (i.e., Tomine teaches a head-mountable display system having a headband and temple arms that are connected in a manner that allows them to be selectively extended and pivoted at different angles in front of a user’s eyes, wherein the head-mounted display system includes a holographic lens, which is pivotally attached to the temple arms, or any other suitable lens type capable of transmitting and reconstructing an image, wherein speakers, which are capable of outputting sound, are connected to temple arms and headband in a manner capable of being hooked over the user’s ears)).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph, if any, and objection(s) indicated above, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening, because for each of the 6-8, 10, and 13 the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3128. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights